Coakley And Brown Debate One Last Time

By Fred Thys
Jan 12, 2010, 5:10 AM
35 Comments

Listen Now

Candidates for the U.S. Senate seat, Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley, right, make last minute preparations before a debate on the campus of the University of Massachusetts, in Boston, Monday. (AP)

BOSTON — State Sen. Scott Brown was on the attack in Monday night’s debate — the last before the Jan. 19 general election. He took issue with Attorney General Martha Coakley on how terrorist suspects should be tried. He said alleged 9/11 mastermind Khaled Sheikh Mohammed should be treated as an enemy combatant and not tried in New York.

“To think that we would give people who want to kill us constitutional rights and lawyer them up at our expense instead of treating them as enemy combatants to get as much information as we can under legal means — it just makes no sense to me,” Brown said, “and it shows me that you don’t quite understand the law when it comes to enemy combatants versus terrorists for United States citizens.”

Brown supports the death penalty. Coakley opposes it. He pressed her to say whether, if found guilty, the alleged 9/11 masterminds should get the death penalty. She said yes, because that’s the sentence under federal law.

The candidates disagreed on President Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. Coakley opposes the president’s decision, and she explained why to moderator David Gergen.

“I’m not sure there is a way to succeed,” Coakley said. “If the goal was, and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believe that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists, we supported that, I supported that goal. They’re gone. They’re not there anymore. They’re in Yemen. They’re in Pakistan. Let’s focus our efforts on where al-Qaida is and not always decide we need to…”

“Would you then send troops into Yemen, where al-Qaida is?” Gergen asked.

“No,” Coakley replied. “That’s exactly the point. This is not about sending troops everywhere we think al-Qaida may be.”

Brown pointed out that he and Coakley both support legalized abortion.

“Yet we have a very real difference,” Brown said, “and the difference is I’m against partial-birth abortion, you’re not.”

“That’s not right,” Coakley shot back.

“Martha”, Brown said, “with all due respect, you wrote an editorial that anyone can go online and find where you actually criticized partial-birth abortion, the fact that it’s in fact not allowed. And we also have have a difference in that I don’t believe that federal funding of abortion should be allowed, and I believe in a very strong parental consent notification law.”

In a 2007 op-ed article in the Quincy Patriot-Ledger, Coakley called a Supreme Court decision upholding a ban on late-term abortions “tragic.” In Monday night’s debate, she came back at Brown by trying to portray him as a social conservative. She questioned him about a proposal he sponsored dealing with emergency care for rape victims.

“Am I wrong, Scott,” Coakley asked, “that the bill you filed allows for emergency personnel to deny care if it’s within their decision?”

“Yes,” Brown answered. “You’re absolutely wrong. It was an amendment…”

“I’m wrong or I’m right?” Coakley persisted.

“You are wrong,” Brown replied.

“What does that amendment do?” Coakley asked.

“I’m not in your courtroom,” Brown answered. “I’m not a defendant. So let me answer the question. The amendment you’re referring to allowed hospitals who had religious preferences not to perform abortions or provide those services.”

In 2005, Brown proposed that hospital personnel be exempted from providing emergency contraception if they had religious objections. His amendment never passed.

Brown came into this debate trailing Coakley. According to most polls, Brown is behind Coakley by as much as 15 points. Monday night provided his chance to change the game, in front of the largest audience of the campaign. He’ll know in a week whether he made enough of an impression for the upset victory he seeks.

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on wbur.org.

Lyndsay

Well, I’m not sure if he’ll be able to pull off an upset, but I’m very impressed by Scott Brown. I think I’ll be voting for him next Tuesday.
EIO Boston

I was wavering, because I was not very strong about Martha. After last nights debate I will vote for her.
Randy

Opportunity for all citizens is a huge concern. But how to pay for it is a bigger concern because there will be a price to pay for racking up public debt that cannot be repaid. I will vote for Brown because I believe he will be more fiscally responsible than Coakley.
Colin Campbell

No matter how impressive or moderate Scott Brown seems to be in debates, he’ll caucus with the Republicans, and I’m unwilling to give anymore power to a party of religious throwback know-nothings.
Andrew Harris

Mr. Kennedy promotes the idea of “across the board” tax cuts, “as JFK did.” He ignores, or does not know, that JFK’s tax cuts were from rates that were more than double current rates. The cuts that Mr. Kennedy proposes will do nothing but increase our national debt.
Richard Morse

Brown is Mitt Romney is sheep’s clothing. His statements before the debate that he is not beholden to either political party are just like Romney’s statements that he was apolitical and just a business man. We all learned that this was a lie when showed us the post-election truth; he was a staunch Republican, beholdened to that platform. Romney did two good things for Massachusetts, health care legislation and getting rid of Bulger. Then he used his governorship and stepped on the heads of Massachusetts voters to run for President. Similarly, Brown is self-centered and not devoted to the citizenry. He is self-aggrandizing and will not support us; rather he will support a national Republican platform and leave Massachusetts behind. In the debate, Brown was repetitive in his attacks on Coakley, trying to drive home the same point over and over. When he asked for extra time or to make a counterpoint, he would simply repeat what he said two minutes ago, adding nothing new to the debate. He filled the air with statements that were simply not true, like Coakley’s position on the death penalty and his own position on health care personnel being empowered to deny care to patients.
No one is perfect, but I want a senator who is honest, clear, and obeys the law. Martha does these things. Frankly, Brown comes in 3rd place behind Coakley and Kennedy for good ideas and honesty. RAM
Scott

Martha came away as, by far, the most professional and the most level headed. I didn’t like how attack dog Scott Brown was and while I was torn before the debate — I did get a taste of the fact that Brown opposes healthcare reform and he said flatly he would love to be the 41st vote against healthcare. That was the nail in the coffin for me. I like Martha. I think she’s done well. I’m supporting her 100% now.
Dave

I have been concerned that Kennedy and Brown have mostly focused on fiscal problems as if concerns about the environment, education, social welfare, etc, are not important. In a nutshell, our economic system is unsustainable and we need to address that directly (something NO candidate would dare to do); until we do, I will vote for Martha Coakley b/c I don’t believe our fiscal problems should hurt all those programs that I feel are so important.
http://geoamilne@yahoo.com george milne

What the hell! I’d vote for Richard Morse if he was running! That was an excellent letter. Many thanks….
David Kimball

Wouldn’t it be nice if they could have a dialogue where none of the candidates talked to or responded to another candidate? They wouldn’t be allowed to refer to the other candidate. They could only answer questions from the moderator(s) and state what they believed and how they felt. Only the moderator would question a candidate to discuss and clarify their views.

Wouldn’t it be nice.
Robert Moore

Why is it that liberals, who profess to be the “enlightened ones” always have to resort to name calling, and personal attacks (ie. referring to conservative thinkers as religious throw-back know nothings??? how ignorant!)? I was originally for Martha because I was familiar with her passion and work ethic, and I did not know of Scott Brown. Thank goodness we know have a choice. It is so clear to me that we must send Scott Brown to the US Senate to stop this senseless ill-conceived health care bill, a bill that was well intended but is now mired in back room corrupt dealings that will only help those states who’s Democratic Senators can whine the loudest. We need to start over with a by-partisan effort! Since the Democrats took over during a very difficult time, our debt has skyrocketed, likewise our unemployment, our enemies have become bolder so we are now less safe, corruption has been the order of the day as votes are bought to try to pass a bill that is NOT wanted by over 50% of the people, we needed water and they threw gasoline on the fire. What happened to transparency and the many other promises made during the campaing??? I understand that politics is a dirty business and that most politicians are arrogant, lie, cheat, misrepresent, and mostly care about their jobs first and the people last….. It is time the people pay attention and start making our politicians accountable to us……Scott Brown is the best we have.
finfan

Brown by far one. When will you pleale learn WE CANNOT AFFORD EVERY SOCIAL PROGRAM. we owe the chineese more then we are worth and it’s about to get worse if this Obomahacare passes. Yes we need to work on h health care how about lookin ginto the fraud and waste? then tort refore. Dr’s do more paper work to cover there ass then they do to see whats wrong with our ass
DK

I think that “who won” depends on who you were supporting before the debate began! It’s not as “clear” as finfan says (I think s/he means “won” and not “one” as s/he typed).
If fixing healthcare was as easy as cleaning up fraud and tort reform, why didn’t the Republicans do this when they had the power? The truth is that we spend much more per person on healthcare, are less “well” and have more uninsured citizens than other advanced countries. We need major reform, even though it is scary to those who want to keep the status quo.
AH

Say NO to Martha Coakley and Gov. Deval Patrick!

Vote for Scott Brown! Jan. 19!
Bill

I really hope the people of Mass can put partisanship aside and vote for Scott Brown. I am a registered Democrat and the fiscal irresponsibility need to stop in Washington. All the ideas are good but now is not the time we need to right the ship first and I do not know why people in my party can not realize the facts. We need to stop printing money now Period!
SouthendBos

I love how Scott trumpeted the fact that he was raised on welfare — and got government cheese off of the back of a truck and pulled himself up to be a success. Where would he have been without that government cheese? Why is an entitlement program OK when Scott needed it, but not OK if someone else falls on hard times? To me, Scott is nothing but another typical Republican pig.
SouthendBos

Scott said “It is clear that my message of restoring checks and balances in Washington as an independent voice for Massachusetts is resonating with people who are concerned about the direction of our country.”

How is accepting 16,000 donations from “people across the country” totalling $1.3M making him an “independent voice FOR Massachusetts?”

If you want someone who will REPRESENT Massachusetts, vote for Martha.
maggie

I will go with Brown. Martha seems like just another Boston Liberal who tows the party line.
Eve

Scott Brown left me with the impression of being both unrealistic and not forthright about his positions.

He opposes the health care reform package that has been battled out in Congress, and said HE would create a better one. Really? Just like that? That suggests that he has delusions of what his power will be in Congress.

He said Coakley was “absolutely wrong” about his position on allowing hospital emergency staff to deny care requested by rape victims, and yet, she was right about his position on this issue. Was he splitting hairs on her use of the word “bill” when it was an amendment? I don’t like that kind of trickery.

When she asked him a simple question, What does that amendment do?, he got defensive (“I’m not in your courtroom”), which seemed like an evasive tactic.

Brown left me with a bad feeling, and also appears to be pretty far to the right and not a good fit for Massachusetts.
SouthendBos

@Eve – I couldn’t agree more. Well said. Additionally, he always schlepped-out his wife and daughters to justify his position, but apparently forgets about them when he votes for or sponsors legislation.
Greg

As an independent who voted for Obama and did not know much about either candidate, I was pleasantly surprised by Scott Brown’s message of being a moderate republican who is fiscally responsible and pragmatic. Sort of like a Blue Dog democrat.

As someone who spent years in corporate finance and investing in small business there is one thing I am certain of…The Healthcare reform bill in it’s current form will bankrupt the nation and dig us a hole we may never climb out of. When investing in “experts” in their field, I always counted on expenses being twice as high as projected, and revenues being half. Congress is not expert on healthcare. We need health care reform and it needs to first focus on reducing wate, repetitive tests, delivery, tort reform and incentives. The current bills do none of this. They are health care expansion bills, not health care reform. Let’s first reform, and then expand…that is the logical step.

I have decided to vote for Scott Brown not to kill the bills, but to force congress to slow down and listen to the good suggestions from both parties to reform, and for once to listen to its constituents. Wouldn’t it be great that Massachusetts was the reason that a workable plan that made sense was passed? This is the only chance. Not Scott Brown per say, but because his 41st vote is the cause of starting real reform.
Patrick

I love the shoot-yourself-in-the-foot liberals from Massachusetts (I can spell it, Martha, and I don’t even live there).

Brown was right – it isn’t Kennedy’s seat. He is dead. It is the People’s seat.
Patrick

Hey, liberal freaks in Massachusetts, she will vote for the health care debacle. If your states want to do it, as it has, fine. Don’t put your crap on the rest of us.
john

It’s unfortunate that all Martha Coakley can do now is run inaccurate negative ads about Scott Brown. Most likely because if people really knew her positions, they wouldn’t vote for her. Scott Brown is far from perfect, but he is a breath of fresh air in the muck and mire of the political machine that is supporting Martha Coakley and the liberal national media that is carrying the water of a liberal agenda that will eventually create more government employees than taxpayers to support them.
Kevin

Coakley will win…these same idiots year after year vote in nitwits like John Kerry and Barney Frank. Ted Kennedy allowed a woman to drown in his car while he swam ashore, checked into a motel and waited 12 hours to sober up before police were called. Oh, but he’s a champion of women’s rights. The people of Mass. deserve what they get!
Carl Spackler

The government does NOTHING efficiently, not even waste our money. You and I will pay the bill in the form of much higher TAXES. The same thing my ancestors fought in the 1700s.
Sam

Scott Brown presents a number of interesting arguments. First that there is too much spending and we need to reduce the deficit. Good idea until one asks why the deficit is high. The economy has collapsed, people are unemployed and deficits rise during recessions because things like unemployment benefits rise, stimuli are needed to put people back to work, and so on. The next argument is that we need tax cuts. Well, we tried that under Bush and the results are obvious. The final argument is that health care reform needs to be stopped. But not only would that cause the deficit to rise further over the long term, to say nothing of the millions who remain uninsured or are denied coverage, but Brown utters to oddity that Coakley wants to cut benefits to seniors. If he is that concerned by deficits then why not cut even more deeply into people’s favorite programs? There is an inherent selfishness to much of this apparent support for Brown – all about self. I am no fan of Coakley who I think is an entitled Massachusetts liberal who was arrogantly cruising to victory. I can think of no redeeming political quality. I just dislike the charlatan and reactionary Republican Scott Brown a little more.
Mark

I find it frustrating that NPR (which is supposed to be the least biased media) framed this debate as Coakley vs. Brown, and basically sidelined Joe Kennedy (who is the Libertarian candidate, not the Liberty party candidate). If the media gave equal coverage and treated Joe Kennedy as an equal candidate, he might actually poll higher than he currently does. By treating some candidates as less than others, the media essentially selects which two candidates are worth considering (the same thing happened to Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich in the runup to the primaries last year). I expect this from Fox, and other major news sources, but not from NPR/WBUR.
Fred Thys

According to the Secretary of State’s office, which draws up the ballots, Joseph Kennedy is the Liberty Party candidate.
R. Wilson

Gergen showed himself to be a total hack. He showed zero journalistic ethic. Brown appears to be upfront and honest and that scares political insiders.
Tom

To me a vote for Brown would have a net negative impact on Massachusetts. The power base of the national GOP is centered in the South. The national GOP does not have a good record in looking out for the interests of New England. On many issues Brown would be voting against the interests of the Northeastern states. To keep Massachusetts as strong as possible in Washington, Coakely, united with Kerry and states with similar interests (education, biotech, financial services), can do more for the average person in Massachusetts.
Carney

Scott, opposing the current health care bill up for consideration does not mean opposing “health care”. It just means you oppose the bill. Nobody is against health care.

Also, speaking of health care, abortion is not “health care”. Nobody is healed or cured of anything by abortion – quite the contrary, it is a deliberate killing.

“Emergency contraception” is also not “care” – because it’s not always about preventing conception, but sometimes instead destroys a brand new human life. A major, major difference. The emotional issue of rape is often dragged in on this, but who among the people you saw today were conceived by rape? Could you tell? Are those conceived by rape less human than the rest of us, with less of a right to live? If not, why are some abortions OK in the case of rape when they would otherwise not be? Why execute a baby for the father’s crime?
Larry Sullivan

America is a great country with good people,but we have some challenges that we need to solve. After the Monday debate, it is a clear choice, Scott Brown should be the candidate Massachusetts voters sends to Washington in 2010. Scott has a common sense approach to the many challenges that we need to solve, health care, enconomy, education and immigration. Scott voting record shows that he believes lower taxes can encourage economic growth. Scott is a tax cutter and he believes in the free enterprise system that has made this country strong. So when you go into the voting both ask your self several questions about Martha Coakley:

Why did you take a pay cut in 2009 to keep your job and the Democrats on Beacon Hill jacked up the sales tax by 25%.
Why are the cops, who should know Martha Coakley besst, are all endosing Scott Brown.
Why did three U.S. soldiers were killed in Afghanistan on Monday, because Martha Coakley said there aren’t any terrorist there anymore.
Your country needs you,bring back common sense to our government, vote for Scott Brown.
Frank Patriot

I would suggest that every able-bodied man, woman and child show up to support Scott Brown at the Coakley event. I would bring in every Patriot from across the state to let Obama know that we are taking back OUR country. It is like sending out a call for the Minutemen to meet on the village greens. The time has come America. What better way to show the world the New American Revolution. Will will take back our country from the Liberals and let it begin where it began over 200 years ago! When the media comes to cover Clinton the Patriots of this great land will be there to greet him. Let’s see the media spin it then! Cut and paste this comment to every comment section in the Boston Globe. E-mail it to other towns. Send it to your friends. Send it to the Tea Baggers as Obama, Pelosi and Reed refer to true Patriots. Show them how the Patriots are going to move this country in the other direction and let it be a message to the world that there is a whole new United States of America being born!

So through the night rode Paul Revere;
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm,—
A cry of defiance, and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo for evermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere.

CUT AND PASTE AND GET THE WORD OUT!
Shalini

Go Scot Brown!!